Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

The Double Standard in the Progressive War against the Dead – National Review

Much of the country has demanded the elimination of references to, and images of, people of the past from Christopher Columbus to Robert E. Lee who do not meet our evolving standards of probity.

In some cases, such damnation may be understandable if done calmly and peacefully and democratically, by a majority vote of elected representatives.

Few probably wish to see a statue in a public park honoring Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founding members of the Ku Klux Klan, or Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion in the racist Dred Scott decision that set the stage for the Civil War four years later.

But cleansing the past is a dangerous business. The wide liberal search for more enemies of the past may soon take progressives down hypocritical pathways they would prefer not to walk.

In the present climate of auditing the past, it is inevitable that Margaret Sangers Planned Parenthood will have to be disassociated from its founder. Sanger was an unapologetic racist and eugenicist who pushed abortion to reduce the nonwhite population

Should we ask that Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign from the Supreme Court? Even with the benefit of 21st-century moral sensitivity, Ginsburg still managed to echo Sanger in a racist reference to abortion (growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of).

Why did we ever mint a Susan B. Anthony dollar? The progressive suffragist once said, I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.

Liberal icon and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren pushed for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II while he was Californias attorney general.

President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the Armed Forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil-service agencies. Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes?

Wilsons progressive racism, dressed up in pseudoscientific theories, was perhaps more pernicious than that of the old tribal racists of the South, given that it was not regionally centered and was professed to be fact-based and ecumenical, with the power of the presidency behind it.

In the current logic, Klan membership certainly should be a disqualifier of public commemoration. Why are there public buildings and roads still dedicated to the late Democratic senator Robert Byrd, former exalted cyclops of his local Klan affiliate, who reportedly never shook his disgusting lifelong habit of using the N-word?

Why is Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, once a Klansman, in the 20thcentury, still honored as a progressive hero?

So, what are the proper rules of exemption for progressives when waging war against the dead?

Do they tally up the deads good and bad behaviors to see if someone makes the 51 percent good progressive cutoff that exempts him? Or do some reactionary sins cancel out all the progressive good at least in the eyes of self-styled moral superiors to those hapless Neanderthals who came before us?

Are the supposedly oppressed exempt from charges of oppression?

Farm-labor icon Cesar Chavez once sent union thugs to the border to physically bar U.S. entry to undocumented Mexican immigrants, whom he derided as wetbacks in a fashion that would today surely earn Chavez ostracism by progressivesas a xenophobe.

Kendrick Lamar, one of the favorite rappers of former president Barack Obama, had an album cover featuring a presumably dead white judge with both of his eyes Xd out, surrounded by black men celebrating on the White House lawn. Should such a divisive racialist have been honored with a White House invitation?

What is the ultimate purpose of progressives condemning the past?

Does toppling the statue of a Confederate general without a referendum or a majority vote of an elected council improve racial relations? Does renaming a bridge or building reduce unemployment in the inner city?

Do progressives have their own logical set of selective rules and extenuating circumstances that damn or exempt particular historical figures? If so, what are they?

Does selectively warring against the illiberal past make us feel better about doing something symbolic when we cannot do something substantive? Or is it a sign of raw power and ego when activists force authorities to cave to their threats and remove images and names in the dead of night?

Does damning the dead send a flashy signal of our superior virtue?

And will toppling statues and erasing names only cease when modern progressives are forced to blot out the memories of racist progressive heroes?

READ MORE: Our War Against Memory Destroying Symbols: Where Does It End? The Left Opens Fire on Columbus Statues

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, to appear in October from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing [emailprotected]. 2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read the original here:
The Double Standard in the Progressive War against the Dead - National Review

Delmarva progressives stand in solidarity against hate – My Eastern Shore

WYE MILLS After the events in Charlottesville, Va., where white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups rallied and clashed with anti-hate groups, Eastern Shore progressives gathered Friday night, Aug. 18, to denounce hatred, bigotry and white supremacy.

Thousands of cars heading to Maryland and Delaware beaches for the weekend passed sign-waving, anti-hate rally-goers asking for peace amongst humanity. Cars honked as they zoomed by, many times followed by waves and cheers. In some instances, though, middle fingers were shown.

Organized by Talbot Rising and Together We Will Delmarva, more than 50 people stood at the corner of U.S. Route 50 and College Drive near Chesapeake College and denounced all forms of hatred and bigotry.

The protests in Virginia, which have sparked national outcry and further protests against hate-groups, left one dead Aug. 12 after a vehicle plowed into a crowded Charlottesville intersection of counter-protestors acting out against the Unite the Right rally, which injured others, as well.

Many rally-goers said they felt a need to denounce bigotry, violence and other forms of inequality, and an obligation to speak out against the current administration.

Ann Turpin, 81, of Centreville said, Silence is compliance, and we cannot allow that.

Turpin, who has eight grandchildren, said it is important for people to voice their opinions by at every opportunity and to call their senators before we get to the crisis point.

White supremacists and neo-Nazi groups were protesting against the removal of a Gen. Robert E. Lee statue from downtown Charlottesville.

Queen Annes County NAACP President Eric Daniels said the events in Charlotesville are a travesty that will bring us all together all over the country. In the face of tragedy, Daniels said, Americans form bonds and stand up for what they believe in.

He said having rallies and speaking up is important to remind people we dont want that in our neighborhood, we dont want that in our state, we dont want that in our country.

Hannah Eastman, 15, president of Queen Annes County High Schools Young Democrats Club, said she believes bipartisanship debates are key to moving forward, and if that is not achievable, theres no chance of curing this deep divide between people.

Denice Lombard of Talbot Rising said being silent would send out the wrong message.

The message we want to send is hatred, bigotry ... white supremacy wont be tolerated, and we will build an army of love to counter it if it does come up, Lombard said.

One goal, she said, is to complete the unfinished mission of Marylands native son Frederick Douglas in uniting people regardless of race or creed. Lombard said people have been enslaved, tortured, died and lived in fear to achieve racial justice, and we wont go back.

Deborah Krueger from Together We Will Delmarva said the peaceful rally was to show Eastern Shore residents support peace and stand against violence and hatred.

We just wanted to make people know that over here, the same as lots of other places, were not going to stand for that, she said.

Also a member of the Queen Annes County Democratic Club, Krueger said letting other Democrats in the area know they arent an island is a goal in hopes more people will stand up and speak out.

Were in remarkable times, not remarkably good times but remarkable times, Bozman resident Ridgely Ochs said. ... If not now, when? And if not me, then who? Its a hot day, but Im happy to be here.

Early Friday morning, a statue of Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney was removed from the Maryland State House lawn, the same fate many statues of Confederate-era symbols have had in the past week. Taney, who penned the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling, stated black individuals could not be U.S. citizens.

Widespread debates have been held about the removal of such statues, with some saying it is revisionist history. Others say that though history should not be forgotten, statues of slavery sympathizers belong in a different venue.

Earlier in the week, monuments of Lee and Stonewall Jackson were removed in Baltimore.

Talbot Rising is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization run by progressive volunteers who use peaceful resistance, education and advocacy for a variety of issues, according to its website.

Together We Will Delmarva is a liberal, politically driven group intended to facilitate communication and support amongst like-minded people, according to its Facebook page.

Follow Mike Davis on Twitter: @mike_kibaytimes.

Go here to see the original:
Delmarva progressives stand in solidarity against hate - My Eastern Shore

Progressives, listen up: Update the net neutrality law – Orlando Sentinel

Todays progressive movement puts a premium on data-driven analysis and commitment to science and facts.

It stems from the early days of the Bush administration when Democrats mocked Karl Roves promise to create our own reality and instead demanded reality-based policies to solve problems, not wish them away. And its powerful politics aligning progressives with the 97 percent of scientists who believe human activity causes global warming or the RAND Institute experts who found transgendered military service has little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.

But theres a catch. To be credible, progressives must also listen when the facts challenge their partisan pre-conceptions. When political opponents propose reality-based policies of their own, progressives must give the data its due.

Right now, for example, the Federal Communications Commission is reviewing the Obama-era net neutrality rules that put in place a 1930s-era utility regulation framework for the internet.

When these Title II rules were passed under former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, most experts warned they would discourage investment in broadband, eliminating construction and engineering jobs and making it harder to deploy new networks and close the digital divide.

And now two years later, the data are in and it makes clear that the skeptics were right. Title II is an investment killer that undermines key progressive values and priorities.

Overall, multiple economic studies have found the utility approach to regulation is a threat to network investment. One recent study found that capital investment at the 12 largest broadband companies has declined by $3.6 billion since 2014, a 5.6 percent shortfall. Another concluded the looming threat of heightened internet regulation has driven total network investment down by at least $150 billion since 2011. Overall, a comprehensive survey of these reports concluded that as many as 700,000 jobs may have been lost so far a lost generation of network jobs we will never fully be able to restore.

These data are backed up by expert reports from industries covered directly or indirectly by the Wheeler regulations. Small equipment and hardware manufacturers warn the Title II approach will have a negative impact on the economic well-being of the numerous small and medium size companies that make hardware and software used to provide Internet services.

Rural wireless companies have explained it inhibits our ability to build and operate networks in rural America. And nonprofit government broadband services have complained they must often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because of risks and uncertainty created by in Title II.

In response, supporters of Title II have released studies and fact sheets purporting to show the opposite that investment has been steady even after the rules were put in place. But being reality based means subjecting all arguments to reasonable scrutiny, and this one just does not hold up.

In part, the data are simply skewed. For example, the Title II advocates use data that includes billions in dollars invested in foreign countries and markets like video that arent even covered by Title II. And that depends heavily on predicted or forecast filler data that even the study author calls flawed.

Even more troubling, this approach is looking at the wrong question from an economists point of view asking only if total investment in broadband has gone up or down since the rules (a question it answers incorrectly due to the errors cited above), not whether investment would be even higher or lower if Title II were not in place. Some investment obviously continued, but the data show much more would have occurred under smarter rules.

For progressives, it is vital to continue to build support for data-driven policymaking and fair-minded analysis of issues and evidence. Its the only real defense against the demagogues and spinmeisters and outright liars that we have.

In this case, that means acknowledging that the Wheeler Title II rules are the wrong way to protect net neutrality because the cost in investment, jobs and deployment of the internet to connect all Americans is just too great.

Net neutrality remains critical, of course. Progressives will always stand for a free and open internet, where no website can be blocked for ideological reasons, and no one is discriminated against or abused online. Free expression everywhere including on the internet is fundamental and must be protected.

But the right way to do this is by pushing Congress to pass a law protecting net neutrality and making it permanent without the risks and harms of Title II. Such a law would ensure that net neutrality cannot be changed when administrations come and go. And that no one not even a president can override it, no matter what.

There is broad and bipartisan support for net neutrality in Congress. Leaders of both parties have already proposed moving forward with such a bill. Progressives should support them and push for a tough, smart and, above all, reality-based net neutrality to be passed.

David Balto, a public-interest, antitrust lawyer in Washington, D.C., is former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission in the Clinton administration.

Read more:
Progressives, listen up: Update the net neutrality law - Orlando Sentinel

Progressives Against Trump Helps Trump, Hurts Everyone Else … – National Review

Editors Note: This piece was originally published by Arc Digital. It is reprinted here with permission.

As the reality of Trumps election to the presidency first set in, analysts immediately began their frenzied search for an explanation. Within the social-media space, brimming as it was with ecstatic visions of our sudden national apocalypse, one factor in Trumps triumph became clear: progressive overreach.

A hashtag was used #ThatsHowYouGotTrump to capture the worst instances of progressive zealotry.

Although the label was gleefully applied after all, Trumps election represented an unmistakable rebuke to Democratic self-satisfaction there was a pedagogical component to pointing out examples of overreach.

If we could educate the Left on the disastrous effects of their limitless moral posturing, perhaps they would temper their enthusiasm. We would reform society by defanging the reformers. A call for progressive self-deportation!

This was a remarkable development. We were offering the Left an Argument from Progressive Self-Interest. It was theirs for the taking. Heres the argument in formal terms.

(1) The pursuit of social change in accordance with progressive values is ethically desirable.

(2) Yet doing so fervently, or at least doing so beyond a threshold of broad social acceptability, leads to political backlash.

(3) The backlash often amounts to politically disastrous consequences for the progressivist cause.

(4) While fervently pursuing or promoting progressivism is ethically desirable, it is pragmatically detrimental, electorally speaking.

(5) Sometimes ethical considerations trump pragmatic ones, but in this case doing so creates a worse overall outcome, ethically speaking. To win politically is to win ethically, given that political power enables the social change we are looking for.

So, (6) We should sometimes take measures such as tempering our enthusiasm, pursuing incremental rather than wholesale change, and not demonizing rival ideologies in order to be most effective at securing our political goals.

We offered this reasoning not, mind you, explicitly laid out in this form in order to help the country.

We wanted to help the Left understand Trumps ascension was a symbol of American displeasure with militant progressivism; Trump was the embodiment of the nations very own #resistance.

Did it work?

It doesnt appear so. The overreach remains entrenched, like a permanent fixture, plaguing our media coverage and our public discourse, provoking reactionary postures that are often times even more morally compromised than the source of the original agitation.

Trump is a singularly offensive individual that much is undeniable. But that can be true while at the same time it is true that Trumps opponents regularly overreach in their attempts to delegitimize and ultimately displace our 45th president from office.

It is more than just bad analysis to conceive of Trump as Americas sole destructive force. It isnt both sides-ism to see Trump-exclusive criticism as misguided.

In an earlier piece in which I distinguished between Trump concern and Trump panic, I wrote:

Disaffection with Donald Trump can take many forms. At the extreme end of the spectrum is pure, panic-stricken hysteria, and involves conceiving of our 45th president as a world-historical threat to decency and civilization; a terrifying, norm-violating, culture-destroying, institution-desecrating madman....

[Its true that] Trump is a destructive force in American politics. But his is an opportunistic destructiveness he relies on a decay already there. [Many] see Trump as the original source of destruction; the defiler of Pleasantville. But the pathologies that enabled Trumps ascent were present long before he came on the scene.

The country notices when Trump is treated as the nadir of all evil. The Clinton campaign centered their message on Trumps unfitness rather than on offering workable solutions for the majority of Americans. Yet neither Clintons spectacular defeat nor really anything else seems to be capable of alleviating the fervor. So here we find ourselves, eight months into the Trump era, with little expectation that the Argument from Progressive Self-Interest will ever be accepted.

I struggle to understand why.

Its not as if this argument for progressive restraint is the product of inscrutable reasoning. Its not as if it was hard to understand why voters had a problem being portrayed as hopelessly inferior and incurably bigoted.

There was no way to foresee this, but it turned out that saying to a student, sitting quietly at her library desk, f*** your white tears, wasnt taken as an inviting gesture by the masses. It was impossible to know beforehand, but it turned out that the Obama administrations censorship of then-French president Francois Hollandes reference to Islamist terrorism, by muting the audio during that part of his speech for American audiences didnt evoke a sense that the White House had their priorities in order. You would have needed a crystal ball to predict that rolling out Lena Dunham to muse on the extinction of white men would not be received by ordinary Americans as a recovery of Eden.

Add to this the infinite explanatory power of white privilege. The sciences wish they could find causal accounts this definitive for anything well, progressives have discovered that white success is totally explained by unearned advantages. What a shocker these same cheaters didnt end up voting for them en masse.

Im being sardonic, I know. But at the same time, this is a serious problem. The progressive possession of an indestructible moral purity, and their sneering dismissiveness of any rival framework, fundamentally reveals an impatience with, rather than a respect for, pluralism.

I understand: When youre basking in the certitude of moral infallibility, theres no time to wait for those who just dont get it. But for the good of the country, even if it means Democratic victories in the years ahead, I would urge progressives to develop a new appreciation for reason and argument, rather than culture-war bulldozing, as the primary driver of social change.

What does it mean to utilize reason and argument rather than the kind of evangelistic zeal Ive been describing? Using two examples from just this week alone, Id like to model the sort of measured approach conservatives should be able to applaud.

Both examples contain (a) the presence of a position not currently accepted by many on the right, and (b) a sample way to articulate it in such a way that conservatives might at least not be turned off by it.

The first example comes from a piece published on Monday in the Washington Post entitled Why Are People Still Racist? What Science Says about Americas Race Problem.

In it, were treated to the following claim by Eric Knowles, a New York University psychology professor:

An usthem mentality is unfortunately a really basic part of our biology. Theres a lot of evidence that people have an ingrained even evolved tendency toward people who are in our so-called in group....Most if not all people carry implicit biases and unexamined prejudices.

Knowles is correct.

Yet this insight has implications for how we should deal with manifestations of certain kinds of racism. My colleague, Ryan Huber, has offered a taxonomy of racism at Arc Digital. One of his reasons for doing so was he noticed, as America has noticed, that a sector of country is too quick to grab the pitchforks, call employers, engineer shaming campaigns, etc.

The reality is there are gradations of racism, and each type calls for a different response. For an orientation so emphatically committed to the value of diversity, its striking that progressivism has such a hard time underwriting differentiated responses to diverse phenomena. More significantly, lumping all offenses together strips the most egregious instances of racism of their capacity to incite universal condemnation.

So what constitutes a measured response to Knowless insights? A willingness to be judicious, and patient, and ultimately winsome, when pointing out a persons implicit biases and unexamined prejudices. If Knowles is correct then many of these instances stem from natural, unchosen perceptual habits. And when it comes to addressing wrong beliefs or predispositions of a more natural kind, the best response is guidance rather than chastisement.

Also in the Washington Post, and also on Monday, Catherine Rampell published an article entitled Trumps Lasting Legacy Is to Embolden an Entirely New Generation of Racists.

Except that wasnt its original title, was it?

The Post changed the headline from this: White Millennials Are Just as Racist as Their Grandparents. The article remained the same, and no explanatory note was offered at the bottom, but the headline was altered.

To her credit, Rampell herself tweeted that she agreed the original headline was misleading. But whats utterly remarkable is that the original headline was proposed in the first place. It is so obviously misleading that only someone predisposed to seeing whites in the worst possible light could authorize it. Look at the headline again: Assuming it wasnt intentionally chosen for its explosive nature, someone conjured up that headline and actually thought it innocuous and helpfully descriptive.

The articles main source of support cites the following data point: Over 3 in 10 white millennials believe blacks to be lazier or less hardworking than whites, and a similar number say lack of motivation is a reason why they are less financially well off as a group.

3 in 10?

Does it strike you that the original headline White Millennials Are Just as Racist as Their Grandparents makes it seem as though white millennials and their grandparents are overwhelmingly racist?

Try it this way. If I say American whites are just as incapable of finishing high school as Asian Americans, what would you think? If you believed me, youd think these two groups were flunking out of high school by the droves.

While the statement is literally true (both groups passing rates register in the high 80s), it is obviously misleading.

Reading only the original headline, one would assume the article is promising to marshal evidence for the thesis that most white millennials and their grandparents are racists.

I happen to think the revised title Trumps Lasting Legacy is to Embolden an Entirely New Generation of Racists is true, but still misleading, albeit to a lesser degree. How might it look stripped of its misleading character? Try this: While most of his supporters reject racism, one of Trumps legacies will be to embolden a new generation of racists. Or this: While a majority of Americans categorically denounce racism, the number of white millennials who exhibit racist attitudes is perhaps surprising.

These, admittedly, would function as a kind of anti-click-bait. But most serious outlets accept that click-attraction does not justify misleading headline creation. If youre fine with giving away the main data point within the headline, you could always go with the safe: 3 in 10 older white Americans exhibit racist attitudes. It turns out white millennials do so at the same rate.

None of these are headlines Id be excited to use, but Im trying to fit into the skin of what an editor for Rampells piece might plausibly wish to use, were he or she committed to describing the contents of the article more accurately.

The Washington Post is one of my favorite publications. Ive written for them, and I have no interest in picking on them. What I am pointing to, fundamentally, is a constellation of interconnected institutions the academy, the media, the grassroots, the hyperpartisan denizens of social platforms each engaged in self-escalating and mutually reinforcing ideological aggressiveness, resulting in the sort of overreach that leads not just to Trump but ultimately to a sort of public dissonance that is corrosive to our democratic norms.

And I would say stop. Please just stop.

READ MORE: A Profound Tension Point for Conservatives The Breitbart Presidency Resignations Plague the Trump Administration

Berny Belvedere is the editor-in-chief of Arc Digital.

See the article here:
Progressives Against Trump Helps Trump, Hurts Everyone Else ... - National Review

Fork In the National Road: A New Progressive Supermajority Party is … – HuffPost

The time is ripe. The Democratic and Republican parties, private political clubs, are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and do not represent the people who elect them, yet have a stranglehold on our electoral system. People are fed up. Hemorrhaging voters, the Dems and Reps are each down to around a fourth of the voters, already minority parties. Progressives those who support minimum wage, social justice, strong environmental protection, 21st century infrastructure and universal healthcare and oppose corruption, invasive wars and corporate welfare are meanwhile 66%, two-thirds of voters, the U.S. supermajority.

We as a people therefore stand at a fork in the national road.

The countrys Progressive supermajority could sweep every local, state and federal election if it united.

Should we come together in the old Democratic Party or form a new one? The Democratic Party is in many states hollow below the federal level. Senator Bernie Sanders and a contingent of young Progressives have therefore been trying for a year to fill those levels with clean candidates, with some success but only to be repeatedly kneecapped by the partys corrupt, deeply entrenched Neoliberal leadership.

Polls show that most Progressives, indeed 60% of U.S. citizens, want a new party. A convergence organized by close to 100 of Sanders former staff members in coordination with the Progressive Independent Party [PIP] and Socialist Alternative, will be held on September 8-10, 2017, in Washington DC. Progressive groups and individuals from across the country will meet at American University to discuss forming a new supermajority Progressive party one moreover that will end corporate control of our government by backing only candidates who refuse corporate cash.

The Convergence is setting up streaming video for sister gatherings throughout the country for those who cant make it to DC.

Unstoppable Progressive change is within reach. Erica Chenoweth, co-author of Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, writes that "nonviolent resistance has actually been the quickest, least costly, and safest way to struggle. Her studies of the last 100 years across the world show that while violent resistance usually fails, non-violent resistance usually succeeds. Over the century, throughout the world, Chenoweth writes, the active support of 3.5% of the people in a nation made the change they desired unstoppable. In the U.S., that would be eleven million people nonviolently on their feet and staying there.

In the 2016 primaries, even with Independents barred in most states from voting, thirteen million showed up for Bernie Sanders. Sanders approval ratings, as shown by a recent Harvard/Harris study, remain astounding: across the board: 80% of Democrats, 73% of African Americans, 68% of Hispanics, 62% of Asian Americans, 62% of those 18-34, 58% of women, 55% of men, 52% of whites approve. His overall approval has been around 60% since 2015.

Though the Convergence was organized independently of Sanders Our Revolution and Jill Steins Green Party, both are invited. In fact, on Sept. 8, a petition-invitation containing 50,000 signatures will be presented to Sanders in his Senate office.

Sanders is not a Democrat; hes an Independent. Yet for a year hes been trying to reform the Democratic Party. His focus on that party, 28% of the voters and dropping, is dividing Progressives, who are 66% of the voters and growing.

Many dont want to leave and found a new party without him. Others are building a new party no matter what. Dr. Cornel West, public intellectual and activist, Democratic Socialists of America, and Nick Braa, founder and director of Draft Bernie for a Peoples Party! have issued personal invitations for Sanders to join them for a panel discussion of the need for the new party and the challenges facing it on September 9. Time is short and unity is crucial.

Will Sanders shift course in September and unite the Progressive supermajority?

And what have billionaires got to do with all this?

The Democratic Party once -- 50 years ago -- was the Progressive umbrella of most U.S. citizens, calling for good pay, social justice, universal health care, comprehensive free education, cutting-edge transport and energy infrastructure, space exploration and strong environmental protection. It was the party of union members, African Americans, Hispanics, feminists, veterans and immigrants. That was then. The partys majority remains Progressive, but during the 1990s Clinton presidency, Democratic party leadership turned right and kept going, merging with the Republicans.

Global corporations in the 1980s bought all the print and broadcast outlets in the United States, drastically shutting down information flow, turning news into propaganda. These media preserve the illusion that there are still two parties and that both are centrist.

Marionettes on strings of money, politicians in both parties rake in millions in contributions while using taxpayer money to dole out trillions in corporate subsidy. Slashing social safety nets in order to give tax breaks to the top 1/10 of the One Percent, they wage war on small countries not because the nations have attacked us but because weapons and fossil fuel corporations make a fortune from it. Those are rightist positions.

Gore Vidal observed in the late 1990s that, there is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ,and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

On two right wings, a nation flies into the ground. We at minimum need a party on the left, the wing of the people.

Jane Mayer, author of Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, has noted, Power has tilted away from the two main political parties and toward a tiny group of rich mega-donors.

In 2010, a Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission began functionally erasing limits on the campaign contributions of corporations and nonprofit groups, and masking the size of individual donations to political-action committees [PACs].

The most powerful megadonor on the Republican side of the U.S. Property Party is elusive hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, a brilliant nerd who became fabulously wealthy by teaching computers to predict the markets. He does not give political interviews, but his views about the worth...or more exactly, the worthlessness...of anyone not as rich as he is... are known.

Reporter Mayer quoted David Magerman, a senior employee at Renaissance Technologies, Mercers fund: Bob believes that human beings have no inherent value other than how much money they make. A cat has value, hes said, because it provides pleasure to humans. But if someone is on welfare, they have negative value. If [Bob] earns a thousand times more than a schoolteacher, then hes a thousand times more valuable.

On the other hand Mercer co-owns Breitbart News Network, and richly funds its Harvard-educated executive chairman Steve Bannon, who recently left the Trump Administration. Bannon and thus presumanly Mercer are nationalists: the goals are a border wall, a trade war with China, a withdrawal from foreign military engagements, and prtection of key industries. Mercer and Bannon detest both the global elite and the corporate mainstream news outlets, seeing them as government apologists. Yet Bannon writing in Breitbart regularly covers for the global CEOs who are destroying world ecology and human economies, with Bannon shifting the blame to Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, the scapegoat of the month.

Breitbart is articulate, often twisting the truth. In between, it just makes it up. Yet its one of the most widely read publications in the world.

Capitalism gone berserk, global investors like the Koch brothers and presidents from Clinton to Obama Trump currently teeters on this issue are trying to shove through international treaties [NAFTA, FTAA, TPP, TISA] that establish corporate courts at world level, able to judge and punish nations. Such courts already exist, with the power to effectively void any laws that protect people or the environment -- if they cost corporations money.

People are increasingly aware, on their feet, fighting back. Of the three treaties above, only the first, NAFTA, has been signed. The world has risen against the other three.

Under corporate rule, with people seen simply as useless surplus labor, the country is caught between despait and determination. Between 1999-2014, suicides increased by 24%. Opioid use was up 200%. Middle aged men and veterans were hit the hardest. A vet is dying by his or her own hand every hour..Sanders approval numbers are also clear evidence of that nonviolent but increasingly desperate uprising. He is a democratic socialist, a New Deal Democrat, calling for regulation of corporations, enforced taxation of multimillionaires and billionaires, a return to human rather than corporate values.

Polls showed that he could have beaten Trump in a landslide even in the swing states that Hillary Clinton lost. So its worth looking at what drew such a diverse bunch and whats already been tried....

Disgusted by both corporatist parties, in 2015 young Progressives recruited 75-year-old Senator Bernard Sanders to run for president. Bernie wasnt a Democrat -- or a Republican. With a 71% approval rating in his home state of Vermont, he was the first person in U.S. history to have won for 42 years at local and federal level without the support of either political party, while refusing corporate money. He was an Independent, which is not a party but a nonpartisan stance. That rarest of modern politicians, an honest one, he said exactly what he meant no matter what the opposition, verbally punched hard and wasnt for sale.

Tall, hunched, pink and easily tanned, with a usually-messy fringe of snow white hair on a bald pate, a defiant jaw, dark eyes sparkling with keen intelligence, humor, compassion or outrage behind big glasses perched on a long nose, shirt sleeves that were usually rolled up on strong arms, big hands that looked convincing in fists, and long legs in perpetual motion, Sanders had a long history of activism..

A civil rights activist in the early sixties when Hillary Clinton was still in high school, and an early feminist praised by Gloria Steinem, he walked picket lines, and hung out with union guys on his birthdays. In Congress he had a bipartisan reputation for outspoken Progressive views and rock hard integrity. A staple on social media, he wrote pithy, knowledgeable often hilarious memes. He and his wife Jane OMeara loved, protected and enjoyed heck out of each other. She had five kids, grandchildren proliferating. Authentic, politically experienced, a life-long activist. Lookin good.

The Democrats and Republicans however had so clogged the nations electoral channels that no one could run for president except through one of them. Sanders had always caucused with the Democrats in the Senate, stumped for many of their candidates.

So the lifelong Independent Sanders entered the Democratic race.

A high energy, connected, determined segment of Boomer women had meanwhile been working for decades to make Hillary Clinton the first woman president of the United States. Hillary had made a feminist speech in Beijing in 1995 which was justifiably legendary. Throughout the 1990s acting as what her husband, U.S. President Bill Clinton, once called his twofer co-president, she was then elected a Senator from New York. She made her first attempt at the presidency in 2008. Barack Obama, however, easily swung the Clinton black vote away from her and brought in a flood of young Progressives who saw her as a corrupt warmonger.

Losing to Obama, Hillary became his Secretary of State, further alienating young Progressives by pushing for fracking and war. In 2016, she was running for president a second time. A Democrat, she began by meddling in the Republican primaries, with disastrous results.

In the DNC/Clinton emails released by Wikileaks and not denied by any of the people involved, the Clinton campaign described its Pied Piper Strategy of nurturing extreme Republican right-wingers, the pied pipers, who by inciting the white nationalists and other haters, terrifying saner people, would increase Hillarys chances of winning. Hillary deliberately raised such Republican extremists as Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump to leaders of the pack in the primaries by speaking of them in interviews as though they were the frontrunners, and by instructing cooperative corporate media to take them seriously. The most promising cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right was Trump.

The Clinton Camp judged that Trump would attract all the worst Republican crazies and that Hillary would therefore sound like the voice of reason by comparison. (There is no hint in the emails of concern for the people whom the crazies night endanger, beat up or as it turned out, kill.) Bill Clinton played his part. After Hillary declared her candidacy in 2015, Trump called his golf buddy Bill to discuss running. Bill returned the calls ia month after Hillary declared. According to people who heard both sides of the conversation, Bill was very encouraging about Trumps plans for the country. With extraordinary media control, it was Hillary who engineered much of the constant, free broadcast early-media coverage -- a gift worth two billion dollars -- that Trump received.

When shortly before the primaries, Clinton pulled the props out from under Trump so that she could beat him in the general election, Trump floundered. Billionaire Mercer and his daughter Rebekah however put money, organizational skill, Bannon and Breitbart at Trumps disposal. Mayer quotes Nick Patterson, a computational biologist at the Broad Institute and former Mercer colleague as saying, Trump wouldnt be President if not for Bob....

Before Hillary could run against Trump in the general election, she had to dispense with the Democratic primaries. The Democratic National Committee [DNC] was supposedly in place to provide a level playing field among candidates. Instead it secretly functioned as a part of the Clinton campaign. She could count too on mountains of favors owed to her family, the real currency of the political realm. Superdelegates are Democratic Neoliberal politicians that in primaries are given more power than three states of mere voters. Preparing for 2016, Hillary had signed up most of the superdelegates two years early, long before mere voters could vote.

All serious Democratic contenders were then told by the DNC to bug off. It was Hillarys turn. Hillarys long overdue (in the Clinton camps view anyway) victory would look better however if she seemed to have competition. The Clinton camp saw two people in the Democratic race, one of them Sanders, as easy to beat.

A poster child for speaking fees, Clinton had a war chest and a corporate and billionaire donor list. After a life of public service, she and Bill had over a hundred million in private wealth and a billion dollar foundation which she, Bill and their daughter Chelsea ran. A Senator from tiny Vermont, Sanders by contrast refused to play ball with any corporation or political machine, so no powerful politicians owed him favors. He did not accept money from major donors. How could he afford to fight her? The Clinton campaign was even more dismissive of the kids -- the people under 50 backing him.

She drastically underestimated them both.

A former long distance runner who was still a nonstop phenomenon of stamina, Sanders, although a sitting U.S. Senator who takes his job seriously, hit the campaign trail in spring 2015 and has been constantly on it ever since. Barnstorming, Sanders was astonished to learn that people under age 50, the Gen-X/Millennials, didnt know that the Millennials alone outnumbered the Baby Boomers. With Gen-X added, if they got their generations to the polls, he told them, it would be a wipe. True generational change would come.

Sanders didnt talk about himself, he described what the young generations could do: Not me. Us. The youngest, those under 30, the Millennials, raised with bogus corporate media and politician stories of terrible political choices to be made, did not know that their nation was the richest in world history, more than able to afford food, shelter, education and healthcare for all its people, and that, instead, bought-off politicians were squandering its resources on trillions in corporate subsidy. So he told them.

His speeches in rallies often sounded like a genial professor lecturing, as he explained the economy, foreign affairs, taxes, student debt, the broken healthcare system and how U.S. politics works. Crowds applauded and roared. Sanders was just as effective in a town hall meeting, really listening. In a matter of months, he became the most popular politician in the U.S.

Young Sanders supporters and his campaign made key innovations in communications and fundraising that cut an even broader path toward renewed representative democracy.

One main blockage that the Democratic and Republican parties had installed was the high cost of running for office. Most of that cost was TV, radio and newspaper media buys. That in turn dated to the 1996 [Bill] Clinton Telecommunications bill. A 2005 Common Cause report stated, The Telecom Act failed to serve the public and did not deliver on its promise of more competition, more diversity, lower prices, more jobs and a booming economy, the group said. Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices. (Or as Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano put it, Never have so many been held so incomunicado by so few. )

With a virtual monopoly, the global corporate media made a mint on elections as the U.S. people were priced out of running for places in their own government.

The two old parties meanwhile also positioned themselves to decide which candidates running for election we actually got to see. In 1989, the Democrats and Republicans formed a corporation and seized control of the presidential debates from the impeccably nonpartisan League of Women Voters, They exclude other parties.

There is nothing gentle about it. In 2012 when nominees Obama [D] and Mitt Romney [R] were due to debate, Jill Stein, physician and Green Party presidential nominee, came to the debate venue with her also middle-aged woman vice-presidential nominee. Without food, water or bathroom breaks, the two women were kept in a warehouse, bound to chairs with plastic twist ties for eight hours.

The internal debates that choose each partys nominees are as dictatorially run.

By 2016, Hillary Clinton had been a household name for two decades. Bernie Sanders was the one who needed exposure. With Republicans flooding the airwaves with primary debates, the DNC allowed only six Clinton-Sanders debates and scheduled them opposite big draws like major football games.

For eight months moreover there was a blackout on any Sanders news in corporate media, which as Clinton emails later showed, was engineered by her campaign and the DNC. Although for example an amazing 30,000 people showed up in just one Sanders rally in January 2016, he received that month only ten seconds of U.S. broadcast coverage. Democracy Now! reported:

Clinton meanwhile pumped her major corporate and individual donors and raised hundreds of millions.

As DNC emails show, the DNC and Hillary also resorted to money laundering. Hillary for example raised far more millions from big donors like George Clooney and his friends than legal contribution limits allowed telling them that the extra tens of millions were for the state Democratic parties. She then gave that money to the DNC, and the DNC sent it to the state parties with instructions to return it, sluicing it back to Clinton.

The strength of the United States though is grassroots democracy, its ability to self-organize and overnight materialize groups to handle any problem. End-running the mainstream blackout of Sanders news, young people and increasing numbers of retired reporters had almost instantly swung up online and carved news conduits through the social media chatter.

Meanwhile, seven million barely-scraping-by Sanders supporters gave an average of $27 apiece, repeating it when they could, and outraised Clinton.

Not only could Progressive candidates put websites online, but Progressives could put and get all their news online. That drastically lowered the cost of running for office. Sanders folk moreover were daily proving that crowdsourced funding could outpace even a candidate fueled by the likes of Goldman Sachs.

Young Progressives, activated first by Obama, now taught by Sanders, staffed phones, went door to door, donated, turned out the vote and mounted media campaigns, learning hands-on the ropes of self-government.

Hillarys rallies rarely brought 1000 people.

The Sanders campaign by contrast could arrive in a town one day and by the next day have 20,000-30,000. This was a crowd of 28,000 in Portland, Oregon soon after his campaign began.

The young progressives repeatedly discovered that the corporate media were collusive. It wasnt only the eight month long black-out of Sanders news, or even the Clinton--ordered Breaking News! if Trump coughed. Time Warner which owns CNN, a network which in turn moderated the presidential debates, was a major Clinton donor, and in at least one debate against Sanders, Clinton got a CNN question ahead of time.

Smear campaigns were a key tactic. They were amplified by media that did not bother to check, or knew better and went with the story anyway. The DNCs chair, Debbie Wassermann Schultz loudly claimed that Sanders delegates had thrown chairs at a state convention -- which in fact they hadnt. Many people thought they had seen proof on the Rachel Maddow Show on MS-NBC. In fact, Maddow had used footage of fans throwing chairs at a wrestling event to illustrate Wasserman Schultz false story that Sanders people had thrown chairs at a state convention. Maddow softly introduced it as sports footage, but why use it at all? It predictably would leave a false impression and did.

At the suggestion of Tom Perez, who was later rewarded with chairmanship of the DNC, the Sanders movement was portrayed as all white. It was in fact diverse, but the media endlessly parroted the Sanders cant reach across the color line story for months.

The DNC at one point cut Sanders off from his own donor list which he had been forced to house on DNC computers, on the false pretense that Sanders followers had hacked the DNC computers. They hadnt. A double-duty story, this was later blamed on the Russians.

Far more young women backed Sanders than backed Clinton. The obnoxious, misogynist Bernie Bros were not from the Sanders campaign; they were either a Clinton financed David Brock operation targeting her own voters for the publicity or random miscreants. In January 2016, "The Intercept" journalist Glenn Greenwald called the Bernie Bro narrative a Clinton "cheap campaign tactic" and a "journalistic disgrace."

Greenwald also pointed to the lack of evidence for the phenomenon. The Democratic Partys ShareBlue later said that the Bernie Bros hadnt been Sanders people after all. It was wait for it the Russians.

Polls meanwhile showed that Independents, nearly half the U.S. voting population, were overwhelmingly pro-Sanders. Yet they were not allowed to vote in the first round of presidential selection unless they joined one of the old political clubs. Independents therefore tried to join the Democratic Party in order to help Sanders over the hump but depending on the state, it tended to be hard or impossible. Some state Democratic parties gave them identifiable ballots and then, opps, forget to count them. That was marginally better than the state parties that decided who won with coin tosses.

The Democratic Party was believably accused of electoral fraud of every description from voter suppression to pre-programming machines to vote shift, putting a set percentage of Candidate As votes in Candidate Bs tally, always in Hillarys favor, producing a dubious Clinton win. A year later, the rigged Democratic primaries are still in litigation all over the country. The really chilling thing? Not just the Neoliberal Democratic leadership but the Neoliberal rank and file of the Democratic Party see all this as politics as usual. They see no reason for reform.

Twice in the last year, Sanders or the progressives have been in a position to jump start a new clean Progressive supermajority party.

The first time was in June 2016, immediately after those rigged Democratic primaries. Sanders was already the most popular politician in the country, with both Clinton and Trumps approval numbers below sea level, He could have run for the presidency as an Independent, which is what he is. His hardworking, fired-up, blooded supporters, organized, mobilized, with huge public support and money in the campaign bank, wanted it. Behind the scenes as reporter Mayer shows, billionaire Mercer knew that a third party could make it, and that people were out to topple the oligarchy - i.e. him among others. Having money is one thing. Using it to destroy representative government in another.

The choice however was entirely up to Sanders.

Seemingly geared up and confidant, Sanders said that he opted instead to fight for the both a Progressive Democratic platform and for the Democratic nomination on the floor of the Democratic Convention. The Progressives stuck with him and there was indeed a fierce platform fight, led by Dr. Cornel West.

As Progressives braced for the floor fight for the nomination that Sanders had promised, however, Sanders plans or demeanor drastically changed. Campaign chair Jeff Weaver had secretly assured Clinton forces that hed keep Bernie delegates and Bernie? How? from making waves. A greatly altered Sanders called his delegates together at the convention and told them not to question Clintons investiture. What had so drastically changed Bernie is a mystery right up there with the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot. well-documented facts are non-existent; therefore theories abound.

The Sanders-led flare up of democracy within the Democratic Party however had meanwhile cost Hillary time and money. Her world runs on favors, pay-off and payback; she and the DNC were vindictive to a fault.

Sanders delegates after all were inside the Convention at their own expense, eager to take part in the nations democratic process. Yet the DNC/HRC saw to it that they were bulldozed: harassed in the halls, their signs and Bernie keepsakes taken, white noise machines turned on over some state delegations, lights turned out over others. The nastiness spared no detail. Although there were a plethora of well designed Sanders tee-shirts, the DNC Convention gift shop carried only an ugly and arguably anti-Semitic Sanders tee of Clinton-campaign design, hung beside tee-shirts with idealized drawings of of Hillary. It undercut other women. Traditionally, the runner up is given a night at the convention, honored. Sanders closest surrogate, Nina Turner, a former congresswoman from Illinois, was supposed to introduce his name in nomination on the stage. At the last moment, with Turner ready to speak, Hillary Clinton forbade it. Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii, was suddenly thrust before billions of TV viewers, her big chance, without time to prepare.

Sanders did nothing to protect or reassure his supporters.

Out in 100-degree-plus heat with massive thunderstorms, thousands of Progressives marched, camped and quietly talked for days. Representatives of hundreds of groups were there. Arguably, thats where the new Progressive party that is now growing started.

When Sanders delegates were even prevented from leaving the building, the outside crowd made a massive feint against the chainlink fences, just long enough for diminutive Jill Stein of the Green Party to slip through and help the delegates negotiate their way out. Using Craigslist, the DNC hired actors with pro-Hillary signs to take the places of the Sanders delegates. In the ultimate mummery, actors pretending to be Sanders delegates assured TV audiences that the Sanders folk were behind Clinton.

Real Sanders Progressives by then might have voted for Attila the Hun sooner than for Hillary Clinton. That was of course precisely the choice that Clienton -- by backing Trump to the hilt at the beginning -- had manufactured. Clinton supporters began 24/7.guilt-tripping of voters. Vote for Hillary, or Trump will be unleashed on you! It will be your fault if we have a Civil War! What Clinton had engineered was a protection racket worthy of a mob-run neighborhood. When after the convention, Sanders stumped for pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-fracking Clinton, most Progressives did not back him, let alone her.

Sanders like Clinton could barely get 100 people in a room.

Running as an Independent, what he is, Sanders however could have beaten Trump. A Gravis poll commissioned by Alan Grayson [D,FL] right before the election indicated that had Sanders made an Independent bid against Trump and Clinton in 2916, he could have won with 56% of the vote, a landslide, sweeping Progressives into the Neocon/Neolib Congress, ushering in a new progressive era.

Instead, he bet on the corrupt Neoliberal Democratic Party. They could not hold the line. The white nationalist fury that Trump has ginned up horrifies and endangers the nation.

Obscured by that that is the quieter loathing that many white working class families without college educations feel toward Clintons and Neoliberals in general. Hillary passed it off as women-hating. That was definitely a factor, but as Greenwald wrote, Clinton exaggerated it, using misogyny as an all-purpose excuse for any opposition to her political stands. Others assume, as wrongly, that all white working class males are bigoted, even white nationalists. As James Carville once said, Its the economy, stupid.

They hate what the Democratic Neoliberals and Republican Neocons have done to their lives. Globalization, robots and outsourcing had destroyed tens of millions of U.S. jobs in the 1980s. For a while, though, there were some well-paid jobs like carpentry and bricklaying that had to be done by human hands, on site. Then in the 1990s the Bill Clinton presidency had shoved the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] through, crushing the Mexican farm economy, deliberately sending tens of millions of workers north desperately seeking work -- devastating even U.S. construction wages with insourcing.

Breitbart did not mention this; neither for that matter did The New York Times, but Bill Clinton had signed his Omnibus Crime Bill at Stone Mountain, the epicenter of the Confederacy and the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan.

Clearly the bills disproportionate effect on blacks was built into it Yet it had devastated families in every ethnic group, giving the US the largest prison population in the world, depriving many young people of their voting rights in the process. As lives and families fell apart, the Clinton-wing Democratic leaders moreover had in the 1990s abandoned the working class altogether, figuring that in terms of voting, had nowhere else to go.

The Republican Party predictably abandoned the working class too. Many workers had turned to Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries, responding to his message that they were being suckered, turned against everyone but Santa Claus, that the country had to unite against the financial elite that was draining all of it dry. When Bernie was denied the Democratic nomination, even that contingent went Trump. For those people, it was an anything but Clinton vote. The counties in swing states that cost her the election were the ones with unusual concentrations of military families. Soldiers and their families above all people want the wars to end....

Clearly, the choice is no longer between Democrats and Republicans; its between Progressives, the overwhelming majority of people in the country, and the global corporations and billionaires represented by the old parties.

White working class males without a college education are supposedly Trumps key group, but they are the group turning away from Trump the fastest. Only a minority of them are white nationalists. Nobody is dealing with their very real economic problems which they share with the rest of the country.

Sure, as Sanders urges, the Democratic Party in many states is like a fabulous empty old house built with what once were the best materials, an endless maze of rooms. Sanders and others argue, Why not repair it? Technically that could work, and Sanders clearly sees how. A big chunk of Progressives are trying to clean it up, but are met by belligerence if not fraud at every turn.

The issue of billionaire backers moreover is a deal-breaker. When Sanders founded Our Revolution, a group to further a Progressive agenda within the Democratic Party. It almost instantly split.Jeff Weaver, the campaign director, was pressuring Sanders to fight Trumps Mercer money and Clintons Soros money with a billionaire or two of his own.

When Sanders seemed to waver, 100 of his key campaign staffers peeled away. Led by Nick Braa, former head of Sanders superdelegate outreach, they set out to create the conditions for a new Progressive party that rejects corporate money, hoping to pull Bernie over. Meanwhile firebrand Nina Turner took over Our Revolution from Weaver, soon circulating a petition for a far more Progressive Democratic Party platform. When she tried to deliver it, the DNC leadership barricaded itself inside its building, refusing to accept the petition!

The Democratic Party manages to be corrupt and Mickey Mouse at the same time.

Time for the People to bet on the People?

To kickstart a new Progressive party, the trick basically is to link all the active groups --- Progressives are an intense bunch whether Sierra, La Raza, Physicians for Universal Healthcare, Greens or Black Lives Matter. Thats happening. We are 66% of the US voters, two-thirds, a clear supermajority that is growing as younger voters reach eighteen. We could sweep every federal, state and local election if we organized as a coalition party.

Sanders has The List of millions Sanders supporters that could also feed the new partys activist core. Among the people pushing hardest for the new partys existence are 100 of his former staffers.

So that is in motion. A petition with 50.000 signatures will be delivered to Senator Sanders in his office on September 8th.

(My aside to the Senator: Come on, Bernie. The young want a spare clean new structure, no rats, no rot, no termites. Thats fair. Theyre the ones who will live in it. By sticking with the Democrats, who are 28% of the country, youre dividing us, the Progressives, who are 66% of the country. Let your legacy include the foundation of a new supermajority party!)_

On September 9, the myriad groups convened by Progressive Independent Party [PIP], Draft Bernie, and Socialist Alternative begin discussions in Washington DC in earnest, livestreamed to sister gatherings so that everyone can plug in. Cornel West, Chase Iron Eyes, Lee Camp, Tim Black, theyll all be there. Jill Stein of the Greens has been invited but not yet responded. On that day theoretically the speakers will just just discussing it, but with luck coordination starts starts. The Democratic Party is down to a fourth of the U.S. electorate. Meanwhile if youre in the Democratic Party, you might vote with your feet against corruption. Just leave. If even half its remaining young Progressives leave, it will collapse to 17%, making way for the new party overnight....

Link:
Fork In the National Road: A New Progressive Supermajority Party is ... - HuffPost